Re: ACTION-77: Propose at-risk wording

On Mar 21, 2011, at 8:22 AM, John Hudson wrote:

> Maciej,
> 
> Before the From Origin idea was put forward, there was formal consensus around the existing same origin text (i.e. there had been no formal objection to it, despite reservations reported by Håkon), and there was certainly consensus that some form of same origin restriction for WOFF was desirable. Yes, there is now consensus that same origin restriction would be better dealt with at the CSS level and that From Origin is a better mechanism, but since that mechanism doesn't exist yet, WG members  on the conference call three weeks ago voted to keep the existing language but mark it at risk, which Chris indicated was a reasonable thing to do within W3 protocols.
> 
> So, is there a way to resolve your objection while at the same time respecting those WG members who are uncomfortable removing all reference to same origin restriction from the WOFF spec while there is as yet no replacement mechanism?

If people are skeptical of the alternate solution materializing, then one possibility is to simply delay entering Last Call. The delay could be for a limited time, say 2 months, to see if the alternate solution comes together. The editor of the CSS3 Fonts spec, John Dagget, is a reasonably active member of this WG, so could presumably drive at least the CSS part of this. If he needs someone to move the From-Origin spec forward, then Apple might be able to provide some editorial resources while Anne is on vacation.

I think in any case it is a mistake to enter CR while the WG contemplates making a fundamental change to what many see as a key part of the spec. CR is supposed to signal that the spec is essentially done and just waiting for implementation and deployment feedback, but that doesn't seem to be actually true.

This would resolve my concern with abusing the "at risk" mechanism.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Monday, 28 March 2011 06:59:16 UTC